Food Security (2018) 10:939–963 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0826-z REVIEW The seafood supply chain from a fraudulent perspective Michaela Fox1 & Mike Mitchell2 & Moira Dean1 & Christopher Elliott 1 & Katrina Campbell1 Received: 27 June 2017 /Accepted: 3 July 2018 /Published online: 8 August 2018 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Food fraud is an intentional act for economic gain. It poses a risk to food integrity, the economy, public health and consumers’ ethics. Seafood is one commodity which has endured extensive fraudulent activity owing to its increasing consumer demand, resource limitations, high value and complex supply chains. It is essential that these fraudulent opportunities are revealed, the risk is evaluated and countermeasures for mitigation are assigned. This can be achieved through mapping of the seafood supply chains and identifying the vulnerability analysis critical control points (VACCP), which can be exposed, infiltrated and exploited for fraudulent activity. This research systematically maps the seafood supply chain for three key commodities: finfish, shellfish and crustaceans in the United Kingdom. Each chain is comprised of multiple stakeholders across numerous countries producing a diverse range of products distributed globally. For each supply chain the prospect of fraud, with reference to species substitution, fishery substitution, illegal, unreported and unregulated substitution, species adulteration, chain of custody abuse, catch method fraud, undeclared product extension, modern day slavery and animal welfare, has been identified and evaluated. This mapping of the fraudulent opportunities within the supply chains provides a foundation to rank known and emerging risks and to develop a proactive mitigation plan which assigns control measures and responsibility where vulnerabilities exist. Further intelligence gathering and management of VACCPs of the seafood supply chains may deter currently unknown or unexposed fraudulent opportunities. Keywords Food fraud . Food integrity . HACCP . Seafood supply chain . TACCP . VACCP 1 Introduction 2015;FSA2016). For the consumer, food fraud can deny their rights to make an informed choice, especially if based on Globally, the food sector plays a significant direct role in hu- ethical or religious issues (Woolfe and Primrose 2004; man well-being through the provision of authentic food ‘fit for Fajardo et al. 2010;Johnson2014; Ali et al. 2015). In the food human consumption’ (European Commission 2002). industry, food fraud creates economic and sustainability con- Inadequacies in food quality, safety, defence and fraud surveil- cerns, evident in food businesses which are hit with the cost of lance have been identified as food integrity risks and of in- recalling products and the subsequent impact on brand repu- creasing sectoral, government and consumer concern tation (Jacquet and Pauly 2008), and places pressure on small- (Galimberti et al. 2013). In particular, food fraud, defined as to-medium sized enterprises to purchase cheaper ingredients Bfood which is deliberately placed on the market for financial in order to compete and sustain their business. Although the gain, with the intention of deceiving the consumer^,isof intention is for profit and not to cause harm, the availability of heightened concern following recent media coverage of food potential contaminants and allergens introduces the unknown fraud instances and their consequences (Kamruzzaman et al. into the supply chain and can lead to severe illness or death depending on the potency of the materials used and the sus- ceptibility of the consumer (Pascual et al. 2008; Sheth et al. * Katrina Campbell 2010; Triantafyllidis et al. 2010;SpinkandMoyer2011; Chen [email protected] et al. 2012; Dennis and Kelly 2013;Paiva2013; Stamatis et al. 2015;Tähkäpääetal.2015). 1 Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, David KeirBuilding, Stranmillis Road, In the United Kingdom, the modern day supply chain al- Belfast BT9 5AG, UK lows ingredients and products to be sourced and transported 2 Young’s Seafood, Ross House, Wickham Road, Grimsby, NE among a range of countries and supply chain players for raw Lincolnshire DN31 3SW, UK materials, processing and retail. These can be supplied 940 M. Fox et al. through individual food companies/importers or from foreign control measures assigned and mitigation measures implement- owned entities within a larger multinational company, such as ed as close as possible to their point of entry. To date there has global sourcing between parent and subsidiary (Johnson been limited mapping of the seafood supply chain in correlation 2014). Complex supply chains create opportunities for fraud- with fraudulent opportunities within the scientific literature. ulent activity arising from difficulties in sufficient surveillance The objective of this study is to address this deficiency by (Dennis and Kelly 2013; Manning and Soon 2014). Coupled systematically mapping the seafood supply chain in the UK with rising prices, scarcity of raw ingredients, the competitive and to understand and describe the issues pertaining to seafood nature of the food industry, the constant drive to reduce costs fraud at each of the supply chain nodes for subsequent vulner- and maximise profits, and the customers desire for variety and ability analysis of the seafood supply chain. access at low cost means that illegal, fraudulent activities and/ or products tempt and are sometimes necessary for players in the supply chain in order to sustain their market (Dennis and 2Methodology Kelly 2013;Elliott2014). The US Pharmacopeial (USP) Food Fraud Database (USP A review of the literature and the application of the prelimi- 2014), reports by Oceana and Consumer Unions (Oceana 2016; nary step for vulnerability analysis critical control point Warner et al. 2013;Warneretal.2016) and scientific publica- (VACCP) evaluation, i.e. intelligence gathering, was per- tions on food fraud have revealed that fraud is highly prevalent formed to map the seafood supply chain in the UK and inves- in the seafood supply chain (Hellberg and Morrissey 2011; tigate the opportunities for fraud. This involved a search of Moore et al. 2012;Everstineetal.2013a, b;Galimbertietal. Web of Science, for articles in the English Language, pub- 2013; Hurst et al. 2014; Johnson 2014; Mueller et al. 2015; lished between January 1950 and December 2016 and where Stamatis et al. 2015). This has been attributed to the increasing the full text was available for viewing. Specific key words and demand and recognition of seafood as a healthy alternative to the combination of these key words were established to in- red meat, the similarity and diversity of seafood species avail- clude: (Seafood or Fish or Crustacean) AND (BSupply able, the stock limitations and price pressures in the food mar- Chain^) AND (map or outline or diagram or picture or Bmass ket (Martinez and Friis 2004; Jacquet and Pauly 2008; Mazzeo balance^ or model*). A total of 54 relevant articles were eval- et al. 2008; Barbuto et al. 2010; Miller and Mariani 2010; uated and formed the basis of the seafood supply chain. This Heyden et al. 2010; Mohanty et al. 2013;Lealetal.2015; supply chain was reviewed by experts within the UK seafood Mueller et al. 2015; Stamatis et al. 2015; Jennings et al. industry. The search strategy was then amended to include 2016). As consumer demand rises towards the estimated (Seafood or Fish or Crustacean) AND (Food Fraud or seven-fold increase in seafood production required to meet Adulteration or Vulnerability). This search retrieved 112 arti- the predicted global population growth of over 9.8 billion by cles which were analysed thematically to understand the vul- 2050 (Delgado et al. 2003; United Nations 2015; Jennings et al. nerability of the seafood supply chain to fraud. 2016), the number of cases of food adulteration and interven- tion of opportunistic elements in the seafood industry increases (Mohanty et al. 2013). This exploitation in the seafood supply chains is concerning as it poses economic, ethical and food 3 Seafood supply chain safety consequences (Buck 2010; Johnson 2014). Moreover, the scope and impact of seafood fraud can vary widely. It can The definition of terms for products when deliberating fraud is occur at every pass of custody in the seafood supply chains, of utmost importance. BSeafood^ is used to indicate edible from large-scale multi-national schemes involving importers, to aquatic life forms, such as fish, molluscs and crustaceans fraudulent activities at individual restaurants or grocery stores. (Stamatis et al. 2015). BFinfish^ is used to describe any animal Each aggregator, shipper or wholesaler who collects, blends, or with a backbone, gills and limbs in the shape of fins. repackages can change the identity, purity and authenticity of BCrustacean^ is an arthropod of the aquatic group Crustacea, the ingredient (Moore et al. 2012). The scientific literature ad- such as a crab, lobster or shrimp. BShellfish^ is an aquatic vocates vulnerability assessment as the first step in preventing shelled mollusc and crustacean though for regulatory pur- food fraud (Spink et al. 2014, 2016a). To conduct such an poses, and the purposes of this review it is often defined as assessment the priority is to identifty each node in the seafood filter feeding molluscs such as clams, mussels and oyster. The supply chain. A node represents a distinct organisation that is seafood supply chain involves